Move to Murder: Who Killed Julia Wallace?

[Herlock Sholmes]

The usual prejudice and fancy and, above all, SHEER IGNORANCE of the time and the place of this crime...



The Home and Social Status (1955) By Dennis Chapman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Chapman
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9Z6AAAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA58&dq=parlour%20rarely-used&pg=PA58#v=onepage&q&f=false


"...the parlour as a rule being a mere storehouse of possessions, rarely, if ever, used."

Why would anyone check a storehouse, behind a closed door, before checking more reasonable places?

Utterly biased, self-serving, dishonest drivel!

The false impression thats attempted to be given is that the Parlour was some sepulchral room. Rarely used. Almost a holy of Holies. It’s accepted of course that the Parlour was the ‘best’ room. Of course the family would spend 95% of their time in the other rooms. But ‘storehouse?!’ The piano was in there for a start. Julia might have gone in their to play it. There are any number of reasons why she might have gone into the Parlour. If she’d had to walk to the opposite side of a large house you would have a point but this door was in reach. So you don’t.

[RodCrosby]

Nope. I use unbiased expert sources, not my own wrong-headed, ill-informed waffle.

"In all of these 50 families the parlour was not used for any ordinary family activity."

So I win.

Every time.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Wallace didn't know she was murdered he didn't know what happened and was worried/perplexed (in the event he was innocent). The parlor would be a natural place to check.

I don't think it is a MAJOR point, but it is a small point.

Add in the fact this sneak thief turned off lights/gas jets, yet no blood tracked anywhere out of room and a victim facing fireplace with no defensive wounds, in a totally different from the cashbox makes quick work of the "sneak thief" theory in my personal opinion. This was a planned assassination.

How about binning the snark, bro?

Hi MGE,

Lets think about what’s upstairs compared to the ‘parlour’ option. What might Wallace have been thinking?

1. There was Wallace’s lab - surely the unlikeliest room in the entire house for Julia to have been in?
2. The bathroom - if Julia had gone to the toilet why would she have turned off all the lights downstairs.
3.The front bedroom - no more plausible than the Parlour.
4.The main bedroom - if Julia had gone to bed why turn off all the downstairs lights when she knew that William was due back at any time?

So those are the upstairs options which overrode option 5. Extend left arm, open door, look inside.

I agree that this isn’t a ‘lock-him-up-and-throw-away-the-key moment’ but I certainly think that it’s an important point. And for Rod, it’s certainly one that Holmes would have called “suggestive.”

[MoriartyGardensEast]

Nope. I use unbiased expert sources, not my own wrong-headed, ill-informed waffle.

"In all of these 50 families the parlour was not used for any ordinary family activity."

So I win.

Every time.

I wouldn't start appealing to authority if I were you, because you are literally the only "expert" (aka author) who believes in your crackpot theory.

CCJ only switched to your theory in a hope to sell more books. I have email evidence of him saying the theory is less than 50/50 likely. I will provide it if needed.

Neither of you are honest players in this and have a vested interest in proving your position. With you it is to the point where one cannot have reasoned conversation. Several posters have noted that.

Antony IS much nicer about it though, although the end effect is the same.

You just can't help yourself.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Utterly biased, self-serving, dishonest drivel!

The false impression thats attempted to be given is that the Parlour was some sepulchral room. Rarely used. Almost a holy of Holies. It’s accepted of course that the Parlour was the ‘best’ room. Of course the family would spend 95% of their time in the other rooms. But ‘storehouse?!’ The piano was in there for a start. Julia might have gone in their to play it. There are any number of reasons why she might have gone into the Parlour. If she’d had to walk to the opposite side of a large house you would have a point but this door was in reach. So you don’t.

I live in England and my grandma's parents and grandparents had parlors when she was little. The rooms were mainly used just for entertaining guests and special occasions.

But anyway in the Wallace home (and from Wallace's words on trial), they did use their parlor to entertain guests, and also for music.

Wallace enjoyed practicing the fiddle, Julia enjoyed the piano. Both were in the parlor, so no doubt it got some use.

But what motive would Wallace have to go upstairs before finding the body? Say he did it and knew the body was there? Just checking that everything is in order?

[MoriartyGardensEast]

Hi MGE,

Lets think about what’s upstairs compared to the ‘parlour’ option. What might Wallace have been thinking?

1. There was Wallace’s lab - surely the unlikeliest room in the entire house for Julia to have been in?
2. The bathroom - if Julia had gone to the toilet why would she have turned off all the lights downstairs.
3.The front bedroom - no more plausible than the Parlour.
4.The main bedroom - if Julia had gone to bed why turn off all the downstairs lights when she knew that William was due back at any time?

So those are the upstairs options which overrode option 5. Extend left arm, open door, look inside.

I agree that this isn’t a ‘lock-him-up-and-throw-away-the-key moment’ but I certainly think that it’s an important point. And for Rod, it’s certainly one that Holmes would have called “suggestive.”

A man once defined hell as a place where there is no reason.

Certain posters dwell in that region unfortunately, as you and I know all too well.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To add to the ‘ignored parlour’ point I’d like to add 4 more.

1. We have the ‘problem’ with the backdoor. I think WWH posted earlier that it was bolted? It was actually the front door which was alleged to have been bolted but we only have Wallace’s word for this as Mr Johnston couldn’t recall if he actually unbolted it to let the police in? And so, the backdoor. The lock was faulty but William had never previously been unable to get in. So the question is an obvious one. What are the chances that the first time ever that William can’t get in is on the very night that his wife was lying bludgeoned to death in the Parlour? Astronomically small I’d say. It’s been suggested that Wallace might have struggled because he was panicked and nervous? Well the famously stoical Wallace certainly showed no other examples of this nervousness and panic. And because he was trying to give the impression that someone was inside the house Wallace never mentions being nervous. He never says anything like “my hands were shaking so badly that I could use the key.” In fact Johnston offered to go and get his key to try the door (Wallace again never said “it’s not the lock it’s the fact that I’m nervous’ or words to that effect.) Of course Wallace wouldn’t have wanted Johnston to put in his key and say “that’s strange, it opens easily for me,” and so, lo and behold, the door magically opens for Wallace.

This points toward Wallace.

2. The light are all off. Why would a sneak-thief/killer have turned them off? It’s been suggested that it was because the killer didn’t want anyone to see the body in the Parlour from outside. This nonsense needn’t detain anyone. Those Edwardian/Victorian type heavy curtains could have contained the light from a lighthouse! This suggestion can be dismissed. We can come up with no logical reason why a killer would turn off the lights causing him to walk around an unfamiliar house in the dark. Can we come up with a reasonable reason why a guilty Wallace might have turned off the lights? Yes we can.

A guilty Wallace is following his own plan which ends with him discovering Julia’s body later in the evening. What could have completely scuppered his plan and pointed the finger directly at him? An unexpected visitor. Say someone like his sister-in-law or his nephew or anyone that knew them. What could have been worse than, after Wallace left at 6.45 according to him’ than a visitor arrives at 7.10 say. They knock the door but get no response. The lights are on though. “Why aren’t they answering?” (If it was Amy, for example, she knew that Wallace was going out on business and that Julia was alone in the house.) They decide to raise the alarm and the police are called and they have Wallace leaving at 6.45 and Julia dead by 7.10. It would have been totally logical and understandable for a guilty Wallace to have turned off the light.

This points toward Wallace.

3. The fact that the killer, covered in blood and with absolutely no reason for caution (apart from fingerprints,) very kindly manages to get not one smidgeon, stain, smear or drop of blood outside of the Parlour. Not on the walls as he brushes past, not on the gas jets as he turns them down, not on the front door as he bolts it, not in the kitchen or the back kitchen. Not on the back door or even the back gate as he made his getaway. Only Wallace would have had to have either cleaned up or used protection against blood spatter (I favour the latter)

This points toward Wallace.

4. In a house where the neighbours on both sides can hear the Wallace’s doors closing and where there are neighbours behind curtains a few feet away over the road no one hears or sees our sneak thief arrive and knock on the door. Not only that but, as per the plan, we have to assume a conversation between Julia and Qualtrough of say between 30 seconds and a minute explaining the mix-up with the light from the hall pouring out. Not impossible of course but worth questioning. We might also ask how likely would it have been for a reticent, genteel Victorian/Edwardian lady like Julia to have let a strange man into the house, after dark, whilst William was out? We might ask how the neighbours could have known that William was out as he left via the backdoor? Two things. I’d make the assumption that, in those days, after dark, it would have been more likely for the husband to have answered the door and so Julia answering might suggest that she was alone in the house. Added to this a neighbour would have only had to have observed William returning later to have confirmed this. Can we honestly believe that Julia, born when she was and being the kind of person that she was, wouldn’t have been hyper-conscious of gossip and rumour?

This at the least casts doubt on a stranger knocking on the door and being admitted, after dark, by Julia who was alone in the house.

Taken as a whole these point toward a guilty Wallace and away from our sneak-thief. None of the above is ‘misdirection’ or ‘logical fallacy’ as will undoubtedly get parroted in response from a certain quarter.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Nope. I use unbiased expert sources, not my own wrong-headed, ill-informed waffle.

"In all of these 50 families the parlour was not used for any ordinary family activity."

So I win.

Every time.

Major own goal there Rod.

The Parlour had Julia’s piano which she could have chosen to play at any time. Why not if she was bored whilst William was out? Unless you consider piano playing to be an abnormal activity.

So you lose.

Evety time.

Beating You is getting boring Rod.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I live in England and my grandma's parents and grandparents had parlors when she was little. The rooms were mainly used just for entertaining guests and special occasions.

But anyway in the Wallace home (and from Wallace's words on trial), they did use their parlor to entertain guests, and also for music.

Wallace enjoyed practicing the fiddle, Julia enjoyed the piano. Both were in the parlor, so no doubt it got some use.

But what motive would Wallace have to go upstairs before finding the body? Say he did it and knew the body was there? Just checking that everything is in order?

Exactly WWH. Some posters are conveniently trying to give the impression that the Parlour was a rarely visited, museum-type room. It’s biased nonsense.

[WallaceWackedHer]

To add to the ‘ignored parlour’ point I’d like to add 4 more.

1. We have the ‘problem’ with the backdoor. I think WWH posted earlier that it was bolted?

I think he originally said he believed the back door was bolted but retracted that statement (he also said Julia bolted the backyard door then said he never heard her bolt it). He retracted the statement about the killer still being in the house when he arrived home as well.

Is that the actions of a guilty man, or a man who is innocent but sees how damning the evidence against him is, spinning a yarn to try and save his neck.

[WallaceWackedHer]

Btw I'm wondering if you have any answers for something...

I'm wondering why Wallace acted so different in front of the Johnstons compared to the police. I don't just mean the crying or whatever... But here's the thing, he specifically pointed out his mackintosh to the Johnstons. He WANTED them to notice it for some reason. But then when the police asked, he hesitated, and did not answer until they picked it up and said it's a gent's jacket. Then he said "if it has two patches inside it's mine", even though he'd already earlier identified it as being his to the Johnston's.

Is there any meaning to that, or just an oddity?

In court he said he noticed it the first time he went into the room, then the second (with the Johnstons), and then that he doesn't know if it was the first or the second. He was really odd about that.

He was odd about having spoken to anyone on the way back from the tram as well, and about the kitchen light.

I think he said to the neighbors that Julia wouldn't have gone out because of her cold. But in court he said he thought she might've gone to the post box.

[ColdCaseJury]

Exactly WWH. Some posters are conveniently trying to give the impression that the Parlour was a rarely visited, museum-type room. It’s biased nonsense.

But what exactly is he checking for upstairs, Herlock? If he went upstairs to the bathroom after the attack to clean-up, I think there are timing issues connected to his guilt (save this for later). If he did not clean up upstairs, he presumably did not go upstairs after the attack and hence got out of the house quite quickly. So what's he checking again when he comes back? Tongue-in-cheek, to make sure all the hats are were arranged just so on Julia's bed?

I'm happy to leave this point on the agree to disagree pile, HS, but I know you feel quite strongly about this so I think it is only fair to invite you to give the details in case I'm missing something.

[WallaceWackedHer]

But what exactly is he checking for upstairs, Herlock? If he went upstairs to the bathroom after the attack to clean-up, I think there are timing issues connected to his guilt (save this for later). If he did not clean up upstairs, he presumably did not go upstairs after the attack and hence got out of the house quite quickly. So what's he checking again when he comes back? Tongue-in-cheek, to make sure all the hats are were arranged just so on Julia's bed?

I'm happy to leave this point on the agree to disagree pile, HS, but I know you feel quite strongly about this so I think it is only fair to invite you to give the details in case I'm missing something.

Is there any chance he was moving money from the cash box up to the vase in the bedroom and chucking clothing etc. about in the unused bedroom?

Otherwise I also wonder what a possible motive could be... Unless, like his expectation of "west" instead of "east", and him almost getting on the wrong tram after his first stop and having to be yelled at, maybe he was hamming up his cluelessness.

Can you help me out with the crime scene by the way:

https://blackpoolcrime.files.wordpre...1brruhfgwl.jpg

I'm struggling to place where her killer could have been when he attacked her for her to fall into that position. It seems he was behind her, but how?

Also what are the odds the mackintosh was in fact thrown over her head when she was battered (completely protecting the assailant from blood), and then the mackintosh sort of flicked at the walls to create the splatter effect?

[ColdCaseJury]

Is there any chance he was moving money from the cash box up to the vase in the bedroom and chucking clothing etc. about in the unused bedroom? This depends on the sequencing of the crime. I doubt Wallace would leave the vital aspect of the robbery (moving money) so late in the chronology; for all he knew, neighbours might enter the house with him. I sincerely doubt Wallace was responsible for the disarray in the front bedroom.

Otherwise I also wonder what a possible motive could be... Unless, like his expectation of "west" instead of "east", and him almost getting on the wrong tram after his first stop and having to be yelled at, maybe he was hamming up his cluelessness. Or - just perhaps - he was trying to find his wife who he expected to be in their bedroom? Given your delightfully honest profile name, I'm not sure you will buy that!

Can you help me out with the crime scene by the way:

https://blackpoolcrime.files.wordpre...1brruhfgwl.jpg

I'm struggling to place where her killer could have been when he attacked her for her to fall into that position. It seems he was behind her, but how? Really great question. Notice Julia's feet are to the right of the fire place but the blood spatter is to the left of it and yet there was no blood on the fireplace, mantlepiece or mirror.

Also what are the odds the mackintosh was in fact thrown over her head when she was battered (completely protecting the assailant from blood), and then the mackintosh sort of flicked at the walls to create the splatter effect? No brain matter was found on the mackintosh. Of course this assumes a reliable forensic examination.

This case raises so many questions...

[Abby Normal]

Here's something I don't understand. Not sure if we're allowed to post crime scene photos, if not sorry, someone can delete it, but have you all seen where her body is and where the fireplace is:

https://i.imgur.com/n59LheQ.png

I don't understand why the report says she was bending down for the fireplace? We do find matches under her body, but I assumed they thought she was bending down front-on to the fire.

Based on where her body has fallen, unless it was moved a bit, I struggle to see where she could have been apart from on that sofa looking towards where the door for the room would be. And I struggle to find where the killer would be to deliver the fatal blow that was to the back of the skull and made her fall forward into that position.

I can legitimately only place the blow as having come from behind the curtain. Can anyone else suggest where she may have been hit from for her to fall into that position from a strike to the back of the head?

That assumes she WAS bending. If she was stood up and going out of the room, someone who was sitting on the sofa with her could've also stood up and hit her. The iron bar and poker would be within easy reach of the fireplace right?

im thinking as shes bending down lighting the fire she gets wacked, falls into it (hence the burnt mac and skirt) and is pulled out and thrown to the floor.